A report suggests Google is planning a HealthKit and Sami competitor.

Google is planning to release a new product called Google Fit that will aggregate health data from various devices and apps, according to a report Thursday from Forbes. Fit will use available APIs to pull biometric information together into one place, but it's unclear whether it will be a standalone app or part of the Android OS.

Reports of Fit come on the heels of Apple's announcement of HealthKit in iOS 8, a system that also interacts with apps and APIs to curate and present health data like steps walked, calories consumed, and heart rates logged. Fit also follows the announcement of Sami, Samsung's health platform for culling health-related info.

Fit is a distant spiritual successor to Google Health, a short-lived medical record management service that Google shuttered at the start of 2012. Google Health required that participants volunteer their medical info to the service, which was not covered by the HIPAA privacy regulations governing medical records.

Apple's HealthKit was designed to be able to re-share information stored there with other apps or healthcare professionals. Forbes makes no mention of whether Google's Fit is just for making biometric data more manageable or for repurposing that info the way HealthKit does.

Forbes states that Google will unveil Fit at its I/O conference, which starts on June 25. After its announcement, Fit may figure into I/O developer sessions about wearables, Android, and the cloud. As always, we will be at Google I/O to bring you all of the big news revealed there.

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

This market is already pretty complete, with Garmin Connect, Strava, SportTracks, and others.... I'm worried google will do another 75% "beta" solution, kill off the much smaller competition, then abandon the idea after 2 years.

Ok, I know Ars readers are all about Privacy and yadda yadda yadaa, but really, this is again an example of "Don't like it, don't use it".

For many people, the possibility the data is used to serve up ads to them or what have you is worth the information they can gain tracking their health and fitness. Because sometimes being fat and private but dead is worse than being healthy with data being freely shared. If it takes that to keep someone in shape, and they understand what they're doing, more power to them.

Ok, I know Ars readers are all about Privacy and yadda yadda yadaa, but really, this is again an example of "Don't like it, don't use it".

For many people, the possibility the data is used to serve up ads to them or what have you is worth the information they can gain tracking their health and fitness. Because sometimes being fat and private but dead is worse than being healthy with data being freely shared. If it takes that to keep someone in shape, and they understand what they're doing, more power to them.

And yet, as the article stated, there are alternatives to this that don't involve giving your health data to an advertising company.

Ok, I know Ars readers are all about Privacy and yadda yadda yadaa, but really, this is again an example of "Don't like it, don't use it".

For many people, the possibility the data is used to serve up ads to them or what have you is worth the information they can gain tracking their health and fitness. Because sometimes being fat and private but dead is worse than being healthy with data being freely shared. If it takes that to keep someone in shape, and they understand what they're doing, more power to them.

And yet, as the article stated, there are alternatives to this that don't involve giving your health data to an advertising company.

The choice is not Google or death.

No, the choice is not Google or death... the choice is up to the individual. If they choose to use this service, great. If they choose to go with another provider, great.

Those two cables look to have some receiver on the end..Little bundle of sensors or something....If I wear the watch, were do I stick the cables ?

I think the four items on the left of the picture are the FitBit Flex, the tiny USB dongle is the bluetooth adapter for syncing data, the longer cable with the rectangular cut out is the charger which the main unit fits into, the blue band holds the main device which is the black rectangle in the centre of the band. When the device is being worn the small sensor unit lives in the band, it only comes out to charge to to cut a long post short you leave the cable at home when wearing the band.

This is a market that really does need some kind of open, interoperable standard. Right now, it's a mess: some devices only work with their own ecosystem, some integrate half-heartedly with other services, all of them duplicate the efforts of each other (your step counter, running app and diet app all have calorie/diet counters and food databases---why?)

I've been holding off buying anything too heavily into anyone's ecosystem until interop gets sorted out, but right now it looks like the opportunity to hock all their customers' personal data has got most of these companies trying to be jack-of-all-trades, and if any of them tank they'll take all their customers' data and either deep-six it, or sell it to the highest bidder.

It's the like Game system (ScoreLoop, OpenFeint, Google Play Games, Apple's Game Centre, Swarm, etc) only worse.

Apple's HealthKit is a good idea, and I more or less trust them as they have no skin in the "sell my info to others" game. Let's see what Google comes up with.

This market is already pretty complete, with Garmin Connect, Strava, SportTracks, and others.... I'm worried google will do another 75% "beta" solution, kill off the much smaller competition, then abandon the idea after 2 years.

Not a chance. The marketing potential of all that health data for pharmaceuticals alone is enormous. No way Google would let that out of its clutches.

I use a Fitbit Flex, but would be totally okay with bypassing Fitbit's software. (Integrating with Google Now would be cool.) I'm curious about the Moto 360 and would love it to crosstalk with Fitbit in some way. Guess we'll see!

I'm not sure what the possibilities are, but this sounds like it could be neat.

It'll be really curious to see if they're launching actual software or if it's slideware and a couple of partnerships frantically put together in the wake of WWDC. Not in some kind of "first movers have moral superiority over fast followers" sense, since I don't believe that. Just curious.

But like we're seeing in this thread, Google's image as "an advertising company" may make it more difficult to collect health data. Then again, people cheerfully give them huge amounts of location tracking data and their entire email history... so maybe it won't be that much of an issue.

I always wonder how much companies can read from the patterns in this biometric data beyond what they tell you in their software.

If they can interpret a certain combination of values from the movement sensors as a "step", maybe they can interpret a certain combination of steps as "waking up and down the aisles of a grocery store".

Or maybe they can other patterns indicate driving, or cooking, or having sex, or ...

It is so lame how one company announces some new clever thing they are doing, and less than 2 weeks later all the others say "hey we are doing the exact same thing"!

Likewise when Apple introduced iPad and everyone at CES went "oh hey we're doing that too!"

You can't take shortcuts when it comes to R&D. There's a good reason it took most manufacturers a good 2 years to really come up with good iPad competitors. There have been rumors of an iWatch for good 2-3 years now.

I'm curious why people think Google would use health information to profit, but Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, and other competitors are offering the service out of the goodness of their hearts.

I don't understand why people think Google will use their data inappropriately when a majority of their success depends on not pissing off the people they collect data from. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you?"

Yes, I receive targeted ads due to the Google products I use. I also receive awesome products for free in exchange, and on occasion the ads are relevant.

I don't understand why people think Google will use their data inappropriately when a majority of their success depends on not pissing off the people they collect data from. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you?"

Because Google is not a sentient being (yet!). It is a collection of thousands of independent employees, each operating under their own motives. You might as well ask: "Why would a Wall Street firm jeopardize its long-term reputation by taking risky bets that damage the economy?"

As someone who has had his personal data conclusively leaked by very large tech firms -- rogue employee or official policy, it really doesn't matter -- I can assure you that this kind of activity is not uncommon.

But if you want your personal medical information attached to your browsing history, emails, location, shopping, etc. in an advertiser's database, by all means go for it.

I'm curious why people think Google would use health information to profit, but Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, and other competitors are offering the service out of the goodness of their hearts.

I don't see responses here saying that it is improper for Google to profit from such a service. The difference between the companies you listed is where they make their profits and their business models. Only one of those companies you listed makes its majority of profit from building information profiles about its users.

Thanks. The clasp looks just fine for most things. It isn't a buckle and I can't really tell how it works... but I wonder if the thing will be marketed as all weather. Or, if they will have something like that.. The clasp doesn't really look suitable for rougher sports but who knows. I am certain it would be strong enough for any exercise I get up to :^(

Don't think I am ever going to trust any of my health data to google; they are just too intrusively creepy.

I agree, they may recommend healthier foods or a treadmill when I'm shopping. That is a scary future I don't want to be a part of!

/s

Despite all the "nefarious" things Google can do with my health information, I will have to check this out.

Well, the worst case I can imagine is some sort of near field device in labels of food stuffs. Kinda like the devices that sense when a product is about to leave the store before payment has been made.

This device would link with your watch and give you advice on whether you should buy it. If you have been good that week, it may give the sack of Snickers a pass. I guess it could be done now if people would scan all bar codes. The near field thing would be passive.. easier.

I'm curious why people think Google would use health information to profit, but Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, and other competitors are offering the service out of the goodness of their hearts.

I don't see responses here saying that it is improper for Google to profit from such a service. The difference between the companies you listed is where they make their profits and their business models. Only one of those companies you listed makes its majority of profit from building information profiles about its users.

But other companies are offering the service for free as well... so they must be profiting from the information. It's not clear to me how Apple or Google differ in that regard. Whether it's true advertisement or some other means -- does that really matter?

In any case, I don't think it has anything to do with advertising based on health information. It'd seem to me that the biggest hook for these companies is to connect people closer to their eco system.

The difference between them and Wall Street & Co is that the latter don't depend on hundreds of millions of people trusting them with anything. Making short-sighted profits at other's expenses is likely to get them more money in the future, not less. Because if you had to invest with someone, would t be the firm that cashed in on a crisis or the ones that got stuck with the loss?

I used the word recently in one of the threads about the 'right to be forgotten'. It was in the context that people may not properly maintain personal blogs...

I don't know when I have used it before. But you got me curious. Is it a buzzword. I don't really like buzzwords and am worn out on 'transparency' and 'hate(r)' myself.

I found this:NY TimesThe Word 'Curate' No Longer Belongs to the Museum Crowd ...The word "curate" has become a fashionable code word among the aesthetically minded, who seem to paste it onto any activity that involves culling and selecting...